National Man decides to open carry an AR at a WalMart in Missouri today...

[Alexx1401]

100% with you. It's the same situation I outlined earlier in this thread. The problem in this situation isn't the gun, it's the conduct. If it had been an oversized cigarette lighter, would we even be defending this guy? We all talk about blaming the person when someone does a shooting, but in this situation we're switching teams and going to "The gun didn't do anything wrong!"

Absolutely, him possessing a weapon wasn't what made this situation a problem. Honestly, I'd like to see shots from the security tapes. My buddy works at Walmart, and he's always happy to see someone armed. However, he's had morons come in with rifles...not strapped to their back where they belong, but walking through the store with rifle at low ready. Being a responsible gun owner doesn't stop at just obeying the big four of safety.

The biggest problem I have with this guy is obviously he feels Mommy and Daddy didn't pay enough attention to him. The problem with a stunt like this cry for attention is new laws. Many don't want to admit it but a LOT of gun owners are all in on gun control. The kind of gun owners who are already either all in on more laws, or just don't care, see some moron like this, then good luck ever getting them to vote with us. They see this and will not vote to stop the next gun law. I wish it was not this way but we have to deal with the real world here.

 

[arakboss]

It's not. I find it interesting that gun owners are quick to jump on someone's legal rights, effectively normalizing taking of rights. To do so, is to be the anti-gunner we oppose.

I generally don't open carry. But if it is legal, I am fine with exercising legal rights. If the article is correct, the firefighter probably should be charged with assault though, for threatening someone breaking no law.

And kidnapping or holding someone against their will. Would we be judging this situation different if he had a pistol in a chest rig? Either we have open carry or we don't.

 

[RVTECH]

him possessing a weapon wasn't what made this situation a problem.

True - it was was the reckless and irresponsible manner with which he possessed it made it a problem.

This aspect doesn't help much either:

A man accused of walking into a Walmart in Missouri equipped with body armor, a handgun and a rifle less than a week after a gunman killed 22 people in a Texas Walmart said it was a "social experiment" and not intended to cause panic,

 

[arakboss]

True - it was was the reckless and irresponsible manner with which he possessed it made it a problem.

This aspect doesn't help much either:

Did anybody actually see body armor on this guy?

 

[RVTECH]

Doesn't look like body armor.
It appears to be just some sort of vest with pouches for mags & other stuff.

 

[arakboss]

Doesn't look like body armor.
It appears to be just some sort of vest with pouches for mags & other stuff.
View attachment 607368

Yep. It is full semi auto body armor.

 

[SavageGerbil]

Oh look, a single point sling instead of hanging on his back, what a shock.

It looks like armor to people who don't shop for this kind of stuff. Perception is what this nimrod was going for.

 

[MikeE]

Maybe he was hired by a leftist anti-gunner organization.

Maybe he wasn't.

 

[Mikej]

If it had been an oversized cigarette lighter, would we even be defending this guy?

I suppose if the MSM was broadcasting nothing but arson stories then a man with a huge Zippo going into Walmart could cause the same panic?

Nobody is defending the guy. I think everyone of us believes the guy did a stupid thing. He should have known better. But, if the letter of the law stated he was allowed to open carry a firearm then he shouldn't be charged with anything. Oh, if that ends up being the case you can sure bet there will be new laws coming down the pike! It will be against the law to scare people. Okay, what defines "Scare" And who makes the decision as to what degree of "Scare" brings how serious of charges? Those of you asking for felony charges against the guy, try and imagine what the future holds, and hope you don't ever have you CC show when you're in Freddy's or somewhere else. you might "Scare" someone.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

National - Man decides to open carry an AR at a WalMart in Missouri today...

It went exactly as you would expect after El Paso. The guy is lucky to be alive and should be charged. https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Heavy-police-presence-at-Walmart-Neighborhood-Market-in-south-Springfield-528602951.html

www.northwestfirearms.com

the dude with the rifle was looking for attention, and recording everything on his cell phone.

Exactly right. Wanted to be "famous" on youtube.

All he accomplished is scaring people and adding more fuel to the fire for the anti-gun crowd.

 

[Dungannon]

Armed man at Walmart says he was testing right to bear arms

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) — Prosecutors on Friday filed a terrorist threat charge against a 20-year-old man who said he walked into a Missouri store wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle and handgun to test whether Walmart would honor his constitutional right to bear arms. The incident...

katu.com

Even his wife and mother advised against it. I'm surprised they didn't call the police: 'my son is going to Walmart with a gun to test his 2nd Amdt rights; don't shoot him, he's just monumentally stupid.'

 

[SavageGerbil]

I suppose if the MSM was broadcasting nothing but arson stories then a man with a huge Zippo going into Walmart could cause the same panic?

Nobody is defending the guy. I think everyone of us believes the guy did a stupid thing. He should have known better. But, if the letter of the law stated he was allowed to open carry a firearm then he shouldn't be charged with anything. Oh, if that ends up being the case you can sure bet there will be new laws coming down the pike! It will be against the law to scare people. Okay, what defines "Scare" And who makes the decision as to what degree of "Scare" brings how serious of charges? Those of you asking for felony charges against the guy, try and imagine what the future holds, and hope you don't ever have you CC show when you're in Freddy's or somewhere else. you might "Scare" someone.

This is not the same thing as printing. As for felony, I wouldn't agree with a felony. Not a lawyer, but I'd see this as falling in misdemeanor "disorderly conduct" territory. The guy wasn't going out to carry a weapon, he was in costume to get a rise out of people. Had he been in street clothes with a rifle on his back, I'd be calling for the arrest of the guy who held him at gunpoint. This wasn't some "oh someone saw a holster and freaked" misunderstanding, nor was it a rifle on the back. This simply wasn't a case of "gun owner doing his thing, just had to do some shopping."

I think the terrorism charge is a stretch, but probation, 30 days, or a significant fine? Not unreasonable.

I know that nobody is defending HIM, but what he did was likely criminally stupid rather than the regular every day kind of stupid. Ultimately, that is what courts of law are for, grand jury at the very least. The functions of the law in question gets explained to a group of jurors, guys actions get explained, they decide if what he did was something he should stand trial for.

I think we're being a little too much like current American politics here, both arguing from the extremes. Should he face terrorism charges? No, probably not. Was what he did right? Absolutely not, but again...he wasn't eating babies or anything. We have slap on the wrist laws for when you did something really stupid that a reasonable man would expect to end very badly.

Someone mentioned earlier if you should arrest the Antifa mask people..if the Boston Marathon bomber had been wearing one of those, and a week later you were walking around Boston with that mask and a pressure cooker? Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that you were doing anything other than trying to generate a reaction. The fact that the expected reaction is panic is what makes it something for the courts to decide. Pressure cooker and mask guy is getting arrested, and we'd be applauding it.

I know the analogy gets brought up for a lot of things, but this is exactly what the "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater" example describes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It went exactly as you would expect after El Paso. The guy is lucky to be alive and should be charged.

Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart

The Springfield Police Department says it responded to a potential threat at the Walmart Neighborhood Market on Republic Rd. near Golden Avenue, Thursday afternoon.

www.ky3.com

Personally I hope they throw the book at him. He set out to purposely cause a panic right after 2 high profile mass shootings. According to his social media, his motivation was likely to get back at Walmart for not selling him ammo because he is under 21. So all these shoppers, LEOs etc. have to deal with his crap just because of his personal grievance. He is not an "innocent" and we should not treat him as such. He can try to clothe it as "exercising 2nd amendment rights" but IMO that is total B.S. and he accomplished the complete opposite. He has helped erode our 2nd amendment rights.

People are already fed up and that is why there is such a powerful political push right now for more gun laws. Idiots like this just make it that much worse and make people feel like they "have to do something". People make laws and people can change them. Idiots like this and crazies are creating a nationwide political will to attack guns. And this is at a time when the NRA is at it's weakest.

Let's be clear. Idiots like this and crazies are what is putting our gun freedoms at risk. Responsible people like that firefighter who held him at gunpoint should be what we are seeing in the news not more crazies.

 

[Member 5605]

He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people and caused a public panic.

We are NOT responsible for the mental well being of others. You, like the MSM are putting emotion over logic and reason.

 

[Mikej]

We are NOT responsible for the mental well being of others. You, like the MSM are putting emotion over logic and reason.

I was trying to come up with something...and dumped it. Thanks, you worded it pretty darned well.

 

[KKG]

bsa1917hunter;

Personally, I don't know ALL of the Laws in the State of Missouri, so I don't know if He broke any of them or a Whole Bunch of Them. I don't think anyone does know ALL of them so......

That being said, I have to think that what He did do was not VERY Bright in this Day and Age. The Folks who do the Open Carry Bit when it has been Announced, Over and Over Again, do it with a certain amount of Future Personal Risk to the Big Three. IMHO.

TTFN

KKG

 

[Camelfilter]

Some of you are missing my point. Yes, he has the same rights we all do. Yes, open carry is legal there so apparently he didn't break laws regarding open carry.

In my opinion this really doesn't have anything do do with guns or open carry. You guys are focused on that aspect of it and missing the rest. Forget about the open carry/gun rights part of it and think about what he really did. He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people and caused a public panic. That is illegal, and they should throw the book at him, and that has nothing to do with open carry laws. Charging this joker with inciting a public panic does not endanger our rights.

Those who say the public just needs to get used to it, and people need to mind their own business, have you ever been in that situation? Have you been with your family and young children when a very serious situation seems to be developing? You can talk tough all day long, but that's when the rubber meets the road. All the theories and legal arguments melt away and it becomes about what are you going to do if that weirdo becomes as dangerous as he looks, how you will try to protect the lives of your children.

It's all about the specific circumstances. I've seen people around here open-carrying pistols, a fair amount. My wife never even notices until I point it out. I won't do it, but it doesn't bother me at all. There's a world of difference between that and putting on all your battle rattle and making a public spectacle of yourself in a crowded public area. It's not the open-carrying that is the problem- it's about deliberately causing a public panic. And yes, given the specific circumstances, the good guy with a gun who stopped him should be given a medal.

Problem is, what about folks whom are not familiar with open carry?

And they then get "scared" simply seeing an open carried firearm?

Am I then guilty of causing a "public panic"?

Why just the other day I came home & was unloading my truck, my shirt got flipped out over my OWB (going from very nicely concealed to blatantly OPEN), then I walked down to get the mail.

A couple we don't know was out walking there dog & the wife spots my open carry & says loudly "my gosh he's open carrying!".

The only thing I was able to say to them was "how are you all doing?" before they scooted off quite quickly, with no response from them.

Now mind you, I'm not a fan of open, but am perfectly within legal boundaries and rites to do so. FEELINGS have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[bentoncity]

Some of you are missing my point. Yes, he has the same rights we all do. Yes, open carry is legal there so apparently he didn't break laws regarding open carry.

Forget about the open carry/gun rights part of it and think about what he really did. He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people and caused a public panic. That is illegal, and they should throw the book at him, and that has nothing to do with open carry laws. Charging this joker with inciting a public panic does not endanger our rights.

Those who say the public just needs to get used to it, and people need to mind their own business, have you ever been in that situation? Have you been with your family and young children when a very serious situation seems to be developing?

Taking this 1 line at a time..

1. "Yes, he has the same rights we all do. Yes, open carry is legal there so apparently he didn't break laws regarding open carry."
   A. Then there should be no issues.
2. "and think about what he really did. He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people"
   A. Is there evidence that supports that statement or is it conjecture?
3. "That is illegal, and they should throw the book at him,"
   A. It's not illegal to scare people in any state I'm aware of, much less "throw the book @ him
4. "Charging this joker with inciting a public panic"
   A. What illegal act did this person commit to warrant/incite a public panic?
5. "public just needs to get used to it, and people need to mind their own business, have you ever been in that situation?"
   A. Yes!
6. "you been with your family and young children when a very serious situation seems to be developing? "
   A. Yes!

Per #5 & 6, I moved them away from the situation.

I believe I understand your point of view but the law is the law. Assuming the moron was not violating the RIGHT (s) to constitutional carry, then there's no violation of the law.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, and I hope I am, but I have to state that I feel like your position on this is akin to the Red Flag Law that's in effect in Wa. State. In overly simplistic terms," I'm scared of (name something here) so lets get the law on them."
If I'm wrong in my assumption, I apologize but my opinion is based what I'm hearing/reading from you. I'm not criticizing but am merely in dis-agreement.
Additionally, there's absolutely, no way, form nor method I can or will forget about the open carry/gun rights part of it. That alone is the very basis for this entire episode from an individual I will still name/classify as an utter moron!

Dan

 

[Talos32]

Personally I hope they throw the book at him. He set out to purposely cause a panic right after 2 high profile mass shootings.

So you can read his mind? It's not like the government can legally publish a list of acceptable attire. Would the rifle alone have been OK? What if it was slung over his shoulder? What if he only wore the pouches but didn't have a weapon? Would a mask have made it worse? What if there were a dozen people doing it instead of one? How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew in advance he would spark a panic rather than a gun rights debate?

"He should have known better" is not an acceptable legal standard. The guy was pushing a shopping cart and narrating a video; I could just as easily argue that everyone "should" have known that meant he wasn't a threat because those actions are inconsistent with any known mass shooter.

MO has a tough road to hoe to prove terrorism, especially if he pre-published a video stating his intent was to provoke "discussion" on gun rights and has the video from the store showing he didn't threaten anyone. A terrorism law that would allow a conviction probably fails the first amendment test and will be headed for federal review.

Free speech case law has long established that you can go right up to the line of threatening violence as long as you don't actually do it or directly advocate it. For example: it's legal to publish the home address, phone number, and all other private information you can find about any public official you like along with a statement like "this guy's address was so easy to find, I'm surprised no one has paid him a visit" or "I encourage you to call, write, or visit senator X in person at his home to let him know your opinion on his voting record." The implication is clear, but it's protected speech. Likewise, saying "I think all cops should die" is OK as long as you aren't clearly attempting to induce someone to actually kill them.

It was an exercise in free speech and open carry. We can agree that it may have been counterproductive, but it's no more a crime than the Black Panthers in CA in the 60's or people hanging out around polling stations open carrying in the last few elections, or a bunch of armed people sitting in the gallery of the WA legislature a year or two ago. Jesus, we let crowds of mask wearing, club wielding antifa take over entire city blocks and don't arrest them until they use their weapons (sometimes not even then).

Was it in poor taste, sure, but a country that bends the rules to find a way to imprison someone just because they didn't like what they did is not a country of laws. Public outrage is not an acceptable reason to jail someone in America. Honoring someone's right to express themselves, even when you find the form of expression detestable, is the mark of a freedom lover and patriot.

 

[CLT65]

We are NOT responsible for the mental well being of others. You, like the MSM are putting emotion over logic and reason.

You guys are missing it completely. You can stand there and say that all day long, and to a certain degree I agree with you, but when it's as egregious as what this guy did, darn right you will be held responsible for what other people think.

It's all about logic and reason, nothing emotional about it. If you go out of your way to frighten and panic people, you will be held to account for that, and rightly so. You can look down your nose at the average "sheep" and how they might be scared at the sight of a gun, but that doesn't change the fact that most people will be concerned to one degree or another.

When you're discretely open carrying a handgun on your belt around town, especially in a rural community, not many people will be concerned or even notice. You're going to have the occasional namby-pamby who is scared at the mere sight, but tough luck for them. A "reasonable person" would not have reason to panic at the sight of someone legally open-carrying like that.

Going through Walmart in full battle-rattle is a completely different story. You cannot say that any reasonable person would not be seriously concerned at seeing that. If you do something like that then you darn well ARE responsible for the general panic and lack of mental well-being in others. As in legally responsible.

It's not about open-carry. It's about deliberately causing a panic, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Any "reasonable person" can be expected to realize that doing what he did would cause a panic. He's not going to get anywhere by claiming that he didn't know it would freak people out. That defense won't fly.

EDITED: sorry guys. I was getting too worked up on this thread. I'm bowing out of this one, and apologize to anyone I offended. We'll just have to disagree, and that's fine. To each their own.